National Defence Committee on May 6th, 2014

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Excellent.

My first question has to do with the Arctic.

We talked about the urgency of this. There is a dialogue right now about oil tankers. We are currently studying the possibility of building ships to meet our needs. Agreements have been made between Canada and the United States. In case of danger or imminent risk, would the United States be willing or able to mobilize equipment, personnel and ships while waiting for Canada to intervene, given that we are limited in terms of our capacity to intervene? Do the United States have this capacity or do they want to work with Canada just because they do not have an infinite capacity?

[Paul Stockton]

We need Canada's collaboration, absolutely. Neither nation can meet these challenges on its own, in my view. An additional investment is going to be required going forward. We don't have the capability that we need to deal with the increase in ship traffic carrying petroleum products and other potential sources of environmental disaster—

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

And 20 years is way too long.

[Paul Stockton]

I completely agree. So let's figure out what we can do in both the immediate term and then over the longer term, for which sustained investment is going to be required.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Is there not a danger in having interdependency on specific types of equipment? Let's say there's a list from A to Z, and we decide to take one-third of that list, which is my understanding of what you're mentioning. At a certain point.... We all hope there won't ever be another catastrophe, but what happens if there are two or three?

[Paul Stockton]

That is an outstanding question. I'd say it reinforces the need to have a collaborative approach. Clearly the risk posed by a scenario such as the one that you have offered—to have multiple disasters—is of lower probability than to have one, but it can't be discounted and therefore ought to be part of the dialogue.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

You mentioned the agreement between the governors and the president. The measures were more effective in the case of Hurricane Sandy than Hurricane Katrina. Effectiveness has therefore been improved.

Could you please give us some examples of changes that were made to accelerate the measures and that could help us change our current structure?

[Paul Stockton]

As in so many cases, the differences in the structure of government between Canada and the United States make it difficult to apply lessons from one nation to the other. We have a system in which each governor has his or her own air force and army and the state national guard, and in state active duty those soldiers and airmen report to the governor, not to the President of the United States.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether you'd like to adopt such a system in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Stockton]

It makes for enormous political complexity inside the United States. Thanks to the leadership of our governors, we were able to forge an agreement that provides for unity of effort between our governors and the Commander in Chief.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Let me ask the question differently. What were the points of friction that were eliminated?

[Paul Stockton]

The points of friction were that in hurricane Katrina, federal forces came in to the disaster response under the command of the President without sufficient dialogue with the governors about which specific disaster response operations were most important for that governor. There needs always to be civilian leadership over defence operations, and in our system governors—not the President of the United States, but governors—have primary responsibility for the public safety of their citizens.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

What is this sharing of equipment? I imagine there is some between the governors and the President in the relationship. I imagine the states don't have a humongous amount of....

[Paul Stockton]

The states are able to use their equipment for disaster response either funded by our disaster response agency, FEMA, or sometimes funded by the Department of Defense. It's an example of the extremely complicated system we have built, which reflects our unique form of government.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Here is one last, quick question.

You mentioned testing le réseau—the grid, the cyber-system—with false Internet pages to see whether there would be attacks or not.

Are other measures of this type planned? Was it very effective? Could you give us some details on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Perhaps that question could be responded to later. I allowed you about 20 extra seconds because I'm trying to balance back and forth.

Mr. Williamson, you have five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to the question of NORAD and maritime warning.

I might just put on the record a clarification. Deepwater Horizon came up, as well as a pipeline. When we talk about the northern passage, we're talking primarily about ships going through. There is no drilling up there, and there's no pipeline. Now, if Keystone XL isn't approved, perhaps there will be: we'll go north instead of south. But for the moment, I think the threat level, the environmental danger level, is altogether different from what we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

Putting that aside, I'll touch on a question that Mr. Chisu asked some time ago. Given that Canada and the United States each have a different perspective on the Arctic, on the question of sovereignty, is it not very difficult for NORAD to take an institutional leadership role in maritime surveillance, when one-third of our territory in the north is perhaps in dispute from an international point of view? We have our position; the U.S. doesn't recognize it. We think we're right; they think they're right. How does NORAD get around that? That's a real stumbling block, I would think, if you can't even agree on what is being monitored.

[Paul Stockton]

My standard response when I was in office was, “That's a problem for the Department of State and DFAIT to work out. In Defense, we don't have to tackle that one.” That remains my party line.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Stockton]

To give you a more serious answer, we can leave that issue still to be resolved and nevertheless look for opportunities for information sharing, under the purview of NORAD in its maritime warning, with full participation by coast guard and all of the other critical components of building the system that we need.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that positions could be nuanced to allow NORAD and some new maritime surveillance capacity to monitor what was happening on all coasts, including the Arctic?

[Paul Stockton]

With the full participation of the coast guard and the other lead agencies.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Sure enough. Thank you very much.

I'd like to come back to a question I attempted to ask you earlier, which is about the influence of the military domestically, in addition to their participation in some instances, and their not being clear protocols such that they are not involved when they don't need to be.

In Canada, it's the same thing. A municipal leader, a provincial premier, similar to a governor, is responsible for declaring states of emergency. At that point, they call in the federal government for assistance, if they need it. It's very similar, just using different terminology.

Yet I worry, particularly given some of your comments in the first hour, about a dramatic increase or a dramatic military oversight of what I see as a civilian and local—by which I mean provincial—responsibility to repair downed infrastructure, for example. Again, going back to the case over the holidays when the power was out, you heard some opposition politicians talking about bringing in the military. I have the largest military land base in the country in my riding. The military doesn't have the capacity to string up lines. There is a function they can serve, but calling in the military is actually not always the best solution.

Could I get your comments on that?

[Paul Stockton]

Absolutely I agree with you. We always need to start with private industry and what industry believes would be appropriate government support.

In our country, we find that our national guard, and to some extent other military forces, can provide for road clearance, can provide for security, can provide for other support functions that utilities actually find useful. But it always has to start with the utilities, since they are responsible for power restoration. What do they think the military can do that is genuinely useful? That is always the starting point for any such discussion.

The role of the military will always be limited, but in these catastrophic events could prove to be very important.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.